8/22/2014

It IS Legal to defend yourself against illegal Cops making ILLEGAL arrests or when they VIOLATE your RIGHTS! The Natural & Common Law Right of Self Defense
“Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a citizen,
and it is a more serious thing to search his person; and he who
accomplishes it, must do so in conformity to the law of the land. There
are two reasons for this; one to avoid bloodshed, and the other to
preserve the liberty of the citizen. Obedience to the law is the bond of
society, and the officers set to enforce the law are not exempt from
its mandates.”Town of Blacksburg v. Bean 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441
(1916): Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11 (Wis 1924)
“Where
officers do not conform to the ‘law of the land’ they have no authority
and the right to resist them exists. A Public Officer, as with a
citizen, who unlawfully threatens life or liberty, is susceptible to be
injured or killed; for by such acts ‘they draw their own blood upon
themselves’ As stated in some cases, ‘where a peace officer has no right
to make an arrest without warrant he is a trespasser and acts at his
own peril.” 6A CJS., “Arrest” Section 16 page 30; A sheriff who “acts
without process,” or “under a process void on its face, in doing such
act, he is not to be considered an officer but a personal
trespasser.”Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 (Fla. 1939) “A person has a lawful right to resist an arrest by an unlawful authority, i.e., an officer without a valid warrant.”
Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903) “What of the resistance to the
arrest? The authorities are in agreement that since the right of
personal property is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, any unlawful interference with it may be resisted and
every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest. * * * and, in
preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force
as may be necessary.” City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306
(Ohio App. 1058)
“It is the law of self defense and self
preservation that is applicable. “One has and “unalienable” right to
protect his life, liberty or property from unlawful attack or harm.” “* *
* it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody without
resistance.” Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
“An
illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be
restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right to
use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other
assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260,
262 (1950)
“A citizen illegally arrested “cannot initiate the use
of force” and neither do “words alone justify an assault.” However,
“when the officer initiates the assault by physical contact, which is
usually the case, and there is an unlawful arrest, the citizen has the
right to protect his liberty to the extent of killing the officer.”
Green v. Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) and/or Hicks v. Matthews,
266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)
“What rights then has a
citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An arrest without warrant is a
trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person, and how far one thus
unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance is to be determined as in
other cases of assault. Life and liberty are regarded as standing
substantially on one foundation; life being useless without liberty, and
the authorities are uninformed that where one is about to be unlawfully
deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the officer,
to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessity
to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great
bodily harm.” State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 464 (1910)
“It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist
that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his own life
or any great bodily harm is threatened. State v. Rousseau, 40 Wash.
2nd, 92, 241 P. 2nd. 447, 449 (1952); Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52
S.E. 283, 287 (1905); see also State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E.
2nd 100, 102 (1954);Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711,
712-13 (1926); American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., “Arrest”, Section 94,
pp. 778-780; Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 S.E. 305 (1892);Presley v.
State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 532, 534 (1918); Burkhard v. State, 83 Tex.
Crim. 228, 202 S.W. 513; Mullins v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91
(1943); Ownes v. State, 58 Tex. Crim. 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910); Caperton
v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)
“The
United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past deciding
upon the matter, has recognized that “at common Law”, a person had the
right to “resist the illegal attempt to arrest him.”John Bad Elk v.
United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899)
“Citizens may resist
unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if
necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v.
U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
The Court stated: “Where the officer is
killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an
attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different
eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the
arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be
murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the
other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” —
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. —
“When a
person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be,
is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and
if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his
assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. —
“These principles apply as well to
an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and
transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and
violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such
force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4
Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. —
“An
illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be
restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending
himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”(State
v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). —
“Each person has the
right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person
attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be
resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.”(State v. Mobley, 240
N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100). —
“One may come to the aid of another
being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted,
molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one
from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have
submitted to such custody, without resistance.”(Adams v. State, 121 Ga.
16, 48 S.E. 910). —
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by
persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a
situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased
to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross
usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or
passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a
minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a
remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate
right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to
apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by
Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading
of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme
Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a
quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person,
is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a
breach of the peace.”(Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed.,
Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197) —
Source: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt

8/19/2014

Five Witnesses saw what transpired that day. They
all say the same thing. Mike Brown was running away as a Cop shot at him. He then turned to give up, with his arms up, and yet the officer still contiues to shoot hem.Why is this Officer not behind Bars. It is time
that ALL officers are held accountable for their actions. Not
investigated by their peers, but investigated publicly, by civilians. An
unarmed teen was shot dead by a person who was entrusted, and PAID the
KEEP people safe. He is at large, and the small town is under martial
law? How is that justice? Instead of trampling the rights of your
constituents Governor JayNixon, why not hold accountable the officer who shot
dead a defenseless person. In a court of law it takes just 2 witnesses
to convict. You have FIVE!http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/08/_5_eyewitness_accounts_of_michael_brown_s_shooting.html

5/01/2014

Here is an article that was shared Via Activist Post

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

By a vote of 23-8 today, the Missouri state Senate passed an “emergency”
bill that seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure
on the books, “whether past, present or future.”

House Bill 1439 (HB1439),
introduced by Rep. Doug Funderburk (R-St. Charles), previously passed
the House by a vote of 110-36. The bill will now go back to the house
for concurrence on some technical amendments made on the senate side. If
passed, the bill will move on to the Governor’s desk.

With language inspired by Thomas Jefferson, HB1439 declares that the
state rejects the idea of “unlimited submission” to federal power. It
also declares that “whenever the federal government assumes powers that
the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are
unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Jefferson wrote the following in the Kentucky Resolutions, which passed Nov. 10, 1798:

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government [emphasis added]

and

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force [emphasis added]

The state capitol city’s namesake would have been proud, said Tenth
Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey. “This is exactly
what Thomas Jefferson himself said that states had a duty to do,” he
said. “States aren’t supposed to stand by and do nothing while the
federal government violates the Constitution. And they’re not supposed
to be willing partners in the act either.”

Maharrey said that while the declarations have great impact, the strong
practical effect of its passage come in other parts of the bill.

HB1439 would make it state law that all federal “acts, laws, executive
orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations,
whether past, present, or future” which infringe on the people’s right
to keep and bear arms “shall be invalid in this state, shall not be
recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state,
and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

Those federal acts which are considered infringing are spelled out in HB1439, including, but not limited to:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on
firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other
goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a
chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by
law-abiding citizens;

(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or
ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling
effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding
citizens;

(3)
Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a
chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by
law-abiding citizens;

(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a
firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

Missouri
courts and law enforcement agencies would be required to actively
protect the right to keep and bear arms from such infringements.

The legislation also specifically bans all state employees from
enforcing or attempting to enforce any federal acts running counter to
the proposed law. These provisions banning state participation in the
enforcement of federal gun control measures are based on the
virtually-undisputed long-standing legal doctrine known as
“anti-commandeering.” Court precedent
from 1842 to 2012 holds the feds simply cannot require state to help
them carry out their acts. In short, the state can simply stand down,
leaving enforcement to a seriously undermanned federal government.

Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government
busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted
the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States
are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal
programs.”

In practice, this means states can create impediments to enforcing and
implementing “most federal programs.” On federal gun control measures,
Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down on
enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce”
within that state.

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic as well. Madison supplied the blueprint
for resisting federal power inFederalist 46. He outlined several steps
that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or
“even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called
for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to
successfully thwart federal acts.

An emergency clause was added to the bill before final passage. This
would make the bill effective sooner than the required 90 days after the
session in which it is passed. It requires a two-thirds vote of each
chamber.

3/29/2014

I am generally a nice person. As long as someone or something does not
infringe upon my rights as a parent or individual I try to stay out of
it. And that’s exactly how I feel about vaccinations. I encourage you to
educate yourself but ultimately, you have the the final say. That’s how
it is here in the United States of America, we have the freedom to
choose, freedom to parent our kids the way we see fit, and freedom from
government interference into the most intimate aspects of our lives
whether we are religious or not.

Or so I thought…

There was a piece published by the New York Times
recently written by Dr. Kristen Feemster (a pediatric infectious
disease physician who profits from “professionally advising”
pharmaceutical companies and feels that a parent’s decision not to
vaccinate may warrant a call to Child Protective Services)
that urged the scientific and public health communities to curtail
vaccine exemptions. In case you’re wondering, a vaccine exemption allows
an individual to forgo the vaccination for medical, religious, and
sometimes philosophical reasons. The reason for trumping these rights?
The public good.

I had many problems with this article, and you should
too, because it infringes on your constitutional rights as a parent,
blatantly suggests that “vaccines are safe and effective,” insinuates
that those of us who choose not to vaccinate our children have no
educated reason for doing so, and obviously assumes that the healthcare,
scientific community, and parents (the most important player in this
dilemma if you will) agree on what constitutes the public good.

Here is my response to this article.

Dear Dr. Feemster, the New York Times, and anyone else who thinks I don’t have a right to (un)vaccinate my child:

I am sorry to hear that you deem a parent’s choice of whether or not to
vaccinate with so little regard. Need I refer you to the United States
Constitution where it has been decided and upheld by the United States
Supreme Court on numerous occassions that parents’ have the right to the
care, custody, and control of their children, freedom to rear their
children without government interference, the freedom of expression and
religion, freedom of privacy, and protection under the first, ninth,
and 14th amendments. The right to raise my child as I see fit and the
right to decide what I do and do not put into my body or my child’s is a
fundamental right granted to me as a citizen of the United States of
America. (See Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Wisconsin v.
Yoder, Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska, City of Akron v. Akron Center for
Reproductive Health Inc., Thornburgh v. American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Stanley v Illinois, Quilloin v.
Walcott, Parham v. J. R, etc.)

You claim that personal and philosophical exemptions should be curtailed
because of those who cannot medically receive vaccines. What about
those of us who are subjected to virus shedding on a daily basis by
those individuals who have chosen to vaccinate? What about those of us
vaccinated or not, who have gotten sick as a result of a vaccine induced
virus outbreak (like whooping cough, measles, and meningitis). What
about the billions of dollars we sink into healthcare every year to
cover the rising costs associated with the surge of childhood diseases,
all of which are listed as side-effects on the vaccine inserts and have
increased as the number of vaccines on the child immunization schedule
have increased? What about the vaccine-injured children? Should we not
be worried about protecting our children from the serious and sometimes
debilitating vaccine-induced conditions? Are my religious freedoms not
protected when it comes to vaccinations? Is my educated opinion that
vaccines are harmful to the human body of less value than yours? What
about the millions of Americans and medical professionals who think the
same?

You
state that vaccines are safe and effective but as a member of the
scientific and healthcare community I’m not sure how you came to that
conclusion. You see, vaccines are not research effective because they
are not subjected to double-blind placebo controlled studies using a
saline solution that is the standard for evidence-based medicine.
Vaccinations are tested against other vaccinations, adjuvants, and
complex vaccinations – this not only yields inaccurate results but
altered and inaccurate safety data. How can you know if something is
truly safe if it is not tested against a placebo?

“Vaccines are safe and effective. The significant reduction in illness
and death from vaccine-preventable diseases is testimony to how well
they work.”

“Measles, mumps, and rubella are three common
childhood diseases, caused by measles virus, mumps virus
(paramyxoviruses), and rubella virus (togavirus), respectively, that may
be associated with serious complications and/or death. For example,
pneumonia and encephalitis are caused by measles. Mumps is associated
with aseptic meningitis, deafness and orchitis; and rubella during
pregnancy may cause congenital rubella syndrome in the infants of
infected mothers.”

Assuming for a moment that the MMR
vaccine actually works, the above sounds pretty good…until you get to
the bottom of the insert where you see that the vaccine is associated
with the same side-effects of the disease it’s designed to prevent:

I’m sorry, I’m
vaccinating against a rash that has a less chance of causing death than
you falling out your bedroom window, being struck by lightening, and
drowning in a puddle, so that I can increase my child’s chance of
getting one of the side-effects listed above? No thanks. I don’t gamble
(especially with those odds). That’s not safe or effective.

And of course, all of these inserts say the same thing: “This list
includes serious events or events which have causal connection to
components of this or other vaccines or drugs. Because these events are
reported voluntarily, from a population of uncertain size, it is not
possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal
relationship to the vaccine.”

Does
this seem like evidence-based medicine to you? Do you think this
pharmaceutical company can’t establish a causal relationship between
vaccinations and side-effects because of the poor manner in which they
conduct their studies (and because they do not want to insinuate fault)?
As a parent, don’t you think the wisest thing to do is to make sure
these substances are held to the highest testing and safety standards
before they’re injected into children? Are you really making me choose
between a measles rash and brain encephalitis?

And I love how the package insert insinuates that the vaccine some how played a role in eradicating measles, mumps, and rubella:

“For measles, 894,134 cases reported in 1941
compared to 288 cases reported in 1995 resulted in a 99.97% decrease in
reported cases; for mumps, 152,209 cases reported in 1968 compared to
840 cases reported in 1995 resulted in a 99.45% decrease in reported
cases; and for rubella, 57,686 cases reported in 1969 compared to 200
cases reported in 1995 resulted in a 99.65% decrease.”

I
find this correlation (that the vaccine eradicated or reduced these
illnesses) interesting especially because the first measles vaccine
wasn’t even put on the market until 1963. So we have twenty years unaccounted for here and the actual data
shows a stark decline in mortality of measles before the vaccine was
introduced. Isn’t that convenient? The same is true for polio,
pertussis, diphtheria, and the rest. (Here’s a good read on that).

Vaccines did not eradicate these diseases. Quarantine programs,
sanitation, clean living conditions, and clean water did. If you look at
how these viruses are transmitted (dirty water, poop, unpasteurized
milk from infected cows, etc.) and the time frame during which these
diseases actually decreased you’ll see this occurred during a time in
both Britain and United States History where our society became more
industrialized as a whole and access to clean water, clean food, and
public health services drastically improved. But we’ll just pretend that
the high prevalence of these diseases in other parts of the world like
Africa and India have nothing to do with the fact that there are
millions of people living in poverty without access to clean living
conditions or water.

But wait, what about whooping cough?
Not only was the mortality rate practically nonexistent before the
introduction of the pertussis vaccine, the actual prevalence of
pertussis was relatively unaffected by the vaccine until 2003-2004
when the outbreaks doubled. Of course this was attributed to “better
diagnostic and reporting methods” which is code for “the new vaccine we
created to replace the old vaccine has failed miserably and has made the
vaccinate dasymptomatic carriers
that can infect anyone in the population…Oops.” I know, the
unvaccinated are easy scapegoats but according to the science, we’re not
the carriers causing the outbreaks here.

The Era of Chronic Disease
I have to agree with your article, we are fortunate to live in an era
where we rarely see polio, small pox, diptheria, and other major
illnesses. I certainly am not a fan of paralytic polio or any sickness
for that matter – what parent is? But to say that these diseases are
“vaccine-preventable” or that the vaccine eradicated these illnesses is a
stretch at best (you can look at other countries who have comparable
vaccination rates and see the failures here).

Do you really think that the increase in chronic disease in this country
has nothing to do with the massive amount of vaccines being shoved at
the American people? If you can’t see the correlation…please read the
vaccine inserts here.

No, what I see around me is a new generation of disease. We have a 1 in
50 autism rate – the highest in history and of any other country. We
have diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, Crohn’s disease, eczema,
learning disabilities, neurological disorders, seizure disorders, birth
defects, psoriasis, food allergies, thyroid conditions, and outbreaks of
vaccine-strain disease like pertussis, measles, shingles, and mumps.
Does this seem like a win to you?

Ask any parent with an autistic child if they’d rather choose a simple
fever and rash that lasts for 3-5 days that gives their child life-time
immunity or the life-long condition of autism (which is listed as an
adverse reaction on page 11 of the Tripedia DTaP insert
which is now discontinued, but not before millions of children were
injected). I think WE as PARENTS owe it to our children to make sure
these vaccines, with absolute certainty, do not cause these diseases
before we inject anything and everything into our children on a whim.
Oh, but how can we do that when vaccines are not research effective?

Herd immunity does not exists when it comes to vaccines.
Herd immunity is this concept that a certain percentage of the
population needs to be vaccinated in order to eradicate a disease. Herd
immunity does not exist with vaccines and here’s why:

Herd
immunity only applies to those diseases that are naturally derived that
confer lifetime immunity. Vaccine manufactures promise to introduce an
antibody. They do not promise the antibody will work (e.g. MMR vaccine
insert) and if it does work it only confers temporary immunity for up to
4-10 years. Chicken pox vaccine gives immunity for “unknown duration” but no more than 10 years, MMR is unknown, Pertussis “protection” is a joke, Hep B is a maximum of seven.

So my child could get the simple childhood chicken pox as a child and
have lifetime protection, or she could get vaccinated, get sick anyway
(by chicken pox or one of the many other diseases associated with the
vaccine), have only temporary (if any) immunity, and increase her
chances by 50% of getting shingles as an adult?

But wait, I should be happy that my infant is at least getting some
protection from the mean hepatitis B that is transmitted via sex and
dirty needles. I was really worried about that one. Good thing she’ll
get another booster when she starts school to prevent that risky
kindergarten behavior.

So we have a bunch of vaccinated people out there who may or may not
have developed antibodies and if they have, will have “worn off” in a
period of days, months, or years. How many people in their 30s and 40s
do you know who have been vaccinated lately? Why do we not see these
“vaccine preventable” outbreaks in this age group? Why are the outbreaks
occurring among the most heavily vaccinated population and in the
vaccinated themselves? And is it safe to get continuous boosters of
these vaccines throughout the course of one’s life? Has anyone done a
study on the long-term effects of repeated vaccines? What about the
accumulation of heavy metals like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum
that have an affinity to the brain and intestines and accumulate in
toxic levels in the body? What about the DNA of the cells (of aborted
fetuses and animals) and its ability to interact with our own?

Don’t you think these are questions that need to be answered before we go “curtailing” a person’s exemption rights?

Dr. Feemster, please let me tell you why I as a parent and educated individual have chosen not to vaccinate my children:

Vaccines have not been proven safe. They are not effective. They have
not eradicated any diseases. They cause illness including the ones they
are designed to prevent. They cause viruses to mutate and strains of
what were simple childhood diseases to become more virulent. Vaccines
assault the immune system, contain additives that are deemed harmful and
toxic by the EPA and FDA, and are responsible for the most recent
outbreaks of pertussis, measles, mumps, and meningitis. The CDC’s
response to their failed vaccine? Get more boosters because somehow
getting more of something that didn’t work in the first place is
logical.

My decision to “unvaccinate” my child in no way affects your children or
anyone else’s children. If anything we should protect the people who
cannot be vaccinated from children who are, since many of the vaccines
cause virus shedding for six weeks or more. In addition, my unvaccinated
child does not put anyone else’s vaccinated child at risk. If their
child is vaccinated then shouldn’t they be protected?

And finally, please tell me how my child, who has never has measles,
whooping cough, (or any other sickness for that matter) is responsible
for the recent outbreaks of these diseases – in the almost exclusively
vaccinated population no less. Blaming an unvaccinated child for the
spread of a disease they’ve never had on a population that is almost
entirely vaccinated is like you blaming a random person’s cat in
Oklahoma for the grey hair you found on your head. Exactly. It’s
ridiculous at best.

Until doctors receive training in medical school on the subject of
vaccinations (that goes beyond the viewing of a child’s picture in a
third world country who has the rarest and worst case of polio known to
man), and start reading the package inserts, educating patients on the
potential risks, are knowledgeable on the history and “science” of
vaccines, and are willing to accept the liability for my child becoming
injured as a result of what comes through the needle… I will always…
ALWAYS… question my doctor.

Until the media stops promoting agendas from financial backers, I’ll
question them too. And until a pharmaceutical company decides to
properly research the product they’re promoting and puts the welfare of
the people over the buck, I’ll question them too.

Until vaccines are properly tested, proven to be safe, proven to work,
not exempt from liability, free of harmful additives, and proven to be
incapable of harming my child…I will not be vaccinating. And as a parent
and citizen of the United States, as an individual who has done their
research, as a professional married to a physician – it is my right to
say no. For the sake of the “public good,” let’s start asking questions.
You don’t have to have a degree to read a package insert or to
understand what it says.

3/25/2014

It has come to our attention, that in recent history, a bill has passed the senate, that in effect, will cause our home gardens to become illegal. This is a frightening breach of constitutional rights, as we are now going to be told that we cannot grow our own produce. This also seems to be an attack on small family farms. We have reached a day in age, where our government has too much power over us. The bill even goes as far as to outline means of surveillance, as to maintain their Orwellian Laws, and to ensure that we comply with these new laws. To the avid reader of Revelations, this fits snugly into the prophecies foretold of great famines, and of people without the "mark of the beast", not being able to purchase or sell any food. Whatever the case may be, it is very unsettling that we have allowed our government this much power without firing those in power that corrupt our constitution.

Want to be a contributor? Have a story that needs to be publicized? Send us an Email sample of your work, complete with sources and references. Must be professional, and must pertain to our current Government issues, or Constitution. If we like you work, we will email you an offer to become an author.

10/17/2013

So apparently, Back in March of 2012, This bill, HR 347, was passed and signed into law, making it a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to protest on government property. Only 3 Republicans voted against it. Obama Signed it. It's a law! This is what happens when people only care about all of the circus media about irrelevant junk! We need to snap out of it People!It's past time foe a revolution. A new American Revolution! It is time for EVERY American Man and woman, of EVERY race, and EVERY religion, and EVERY lifestyle, to STAND UP! SPEAK OUT! Make our voices heard as one! It is time to take back our government, and run it the way it was designed to be! Not for the companies or for the Wealthy, but for EVERY United State's Citizen! All of the Working Joe's, and the diligent Debbie's out there that are run down and work there butts off for slave wages just so they barely pay their rent,barely keep their lights on, and get judged because they still need medicaid or stamps just so their Kids can eat! For EVERY American that has been told that they no longer have a right to do what was given them a right to do by CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER! We need to stop being petty with one another over who's gay and who isn't, or who married who, or how many, or what someone's original gender was, or ones ethnicity! Amerca is made up of Immigrants, plain and simple. We ALL came here from overseas on a boat at one point or another, be it willingly or not, and we live on land that was taken from others, So stop acting so High and friggin' mighty! If we want our rights preserved, we have to respect the rights of ALL Americans, and work together as one race of PEOPLE! WE, THE PEOPLE!

10/16/2013

According to News sources, Our Government is now tring to pass a law, making it a felony to Protest. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! They are trying to silence us so that we cannot fight against their illegal laws, passed by executive order (bypassing the legal route of law-making). They can only get away with it if we let them. We need to all march, together, and with a loud, singular voice, made up of the multitudes of all races, genders, beliefs, lifestyles, and religions, and tell the "NO!". They all need to be fired, and we are the ones that have that authority to do so. They don't want you to know that. That is why they Do what they do. Let's get out there and get our voices heard!

12/16/2012

We believe that banning firearms outright, would itself be a breach of Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. We would then lose our right to hunt, or to protect ourselves and our families, from criminals who don't care about the law in the first place, or from an external force that may get past military forces, or even from an extremely corrupt government bent on revoking the rights given us by the Constitution. In the following days and weeks to come after this grave tragedy, we must tread cautiously, and attempt to take more control over the means by which people obtain firearms. While grief stricken families and citizens may rush to ask for the banning of guns, let us take a moment to consider this: a criminal will not care if something is banned. Just as they get their hands on drugs and other contraband, they can also get weapons, and use them on us law abiding civilians, and have no firearms to defend against them. Also, please consider that throughout history, all other empires became corrupt and turned on their people. That leaves none exempt, including ours. If in the event that one too many laws are passed too crush our freedoms, and gives away our right to bare arms, we then make it right for only tyrants and criminals to own weapons. Is that REALLY what we want for the future of our children who we as parents would fight to the death for?

10/18/2012

A New American Revolution! When Will It Start? How Will It Start?

When will it start? How will it start? Who will start it? How will it end?
What am I talking about? The next American Revolution.
How much longer will people take what our own government is doing to
us? For more than 30 years I have been saying, “If a foreign country was
doing to us what our government is doing to us we would be at war.”
I am not going to re-cap all the things that the Federal Government
has done to us, is doing to us and will be doing to us in the future but
when will the American people reach the breaking point and take action?
Our government is like a runaway train that is going to crash. It is
just a matter of when, not if unless something is done.
Ronald Reagan reminded us that freedom CAN be lost when he said, “Freedom
is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass
it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected,
and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our
sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it
was once like in the United States where men were free.”
I fear we are the generation that is going to let Reagan down and let
freedom extinguish in our time. Every day we lose more and more
freedoms. It is a gradual decay and this is on purpose in the hopes that
“We the People” won’t notice it or won’t care until it is too late to
change anything.
We have a wonderful gift in this country that was given us by the
Founders. They risked their fortunes and their very lives to give us
what we have and today it seems no one cares if we throw it all away.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the others
would be so disappointed in us.
Yes, there is still hope to restore our country to what it once was
but time is running out quickly. Think about the risk the founders took?
They were under the rule of the King of England and the strongest
military in the world but the lure of freedom and individual liberty
drove them to do something the world had never seen before.
The concept that Americans have the right to “Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness” and that these rights were given not by a King or
government that could take them away, but by God and are inalienable was
unique in human history. Never had such a document as the Declaration
been produced and never has once since.“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Declaration was an act of treason and the signers risked their
very lives by putting their name on it. If they were captured by the
British they would have been executed. When the Declaration was signed
there was no cheering reports say, it was a solemn moment as they all
understood the gravity of what they had just done.
Ben Franklin is noted as saying, “Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately.”
They risked it all for an idea, for a concept, for true freedom and
liberty. Ask yourself this, what are you willing to risk to retain what
they gave us? A friend of mine once told me that nothing will change.
The government will keep taking away our freedoms, keep spending and
printing money until one day it all collapses. Nothing or no one can
stop it.
I asked, “Why?” “Why can’t we stop this? Why can’t we take back our
country and restore our government to what it should be? Why can’t we
secure individual liberty and freedom just as the Founders did?” His
response was that in today’s world none of us are willing to risk losing
what we have to get it done. We all have nice, easy lives. We have nice
homes, cars, computers, jobs, family vacations, swimming pools, RV’s,
smart phones, a day at the beach, etc and we want to enjoy every bit of
this great lifestyle we have been blessed with. We don’t want to risk
losing that.
So we turn our backs on what is happening. We look the other way as
liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists ‘fundamentally change’
the very heart of our country. Heck, we are too busy making America run
anyway. So we ‘let’ it all happen right under our noses.
Where is the next Thomas Jefferson, The next Ben Franklin, or the
next John Adams? Is there another ‘revolutionary’ out there today that
is willing to risk it all for our Country like they did? Glenn Beck
called Rick Santorum the ‘Next George Washington” but does anyone really
think ANY of the people running for President these days will make a
difference? Not likely. As Gingrich says, “they will just manage the
decay.”
If there is not someone out there that is willing to risk everything
to take a stand and start a revolution like they did in 1776 nothing
change. And even if someone stands up will people like us rally around
this person and stand with them or will we watch from a safe distance
(just in case) and let them fall?
The great thing about our society is we CAN peacefully change our government. It may not be easy and it may not be pretty but we can do it IF
we all rally together. Sure, the Founders signed the Declaration. It
was a very brave and bold thing to do BUT if the PEOPLE did not rally
around the cause, if the PEOPLE were not willing to risk what they had
the movement would have failed. If the PEOPLE were not willing to pledge
“Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” the British would have
won and there would be no United States of America.
And it was not easy to radically change their world as it won’t be
easy to change ours. It took years and years of sacrifice. Who amongst
us believes in “true” liberty and freedom enough to make that sacrifice?
We all talk about it. But who is supremely committed to the cause? Make
no doubt the liberals are absolutely committed on their side. They even
told us flat out in 2008 that they wanted to fundamentally change
America and let me tell you they are doing it!
Maybe there are millions of us out there that would risk everything
to making real change happen. And save America. Maybe we are just
sitting and patiently waiting for someone to lead us. Perhaps we are not
fed up enough yet or we have not been pushed all the way to the wall.
Maybe because our own standard of living is still good and we are afraid
to risk that.
So what can really be done? What is reality? Are we going to ‘settle’
for what we think is realistic change or will we demand radical change
to restore America to what it once was? Ron Paul thinks real change
won’t happen. I heard him comment on the radio a few months ago that he
is afraid that politicians will never have the will to do what is right
and that real chance will only come after a total collapse of our
economic system. Are we going to wait until that happens?
Believe me, there will be no change no matter who we elect. Even the
most ardent Tea Party believers get elected and then find they don’t
have the ability to change Washington. Either they can’t or they change
their views because they don’t want to risk what they now have, meaning
risk losing their next election and their cushy and powerful job in
Washington. We will have to “force” change. Make no doubt about it
otherwise it is not going to happen and what Ron Paul envisions will
become reality one day.
Here are a couple scenarios that I could envision ‘forcing’ radical
change in Washington. Not saying either of these is the right way or
they would work but they are possible ways.
Scenario A)
1) Ten million of us march on Washington DC and peacefully
invade and take over Congress. We demand a total resignation of everyone
in Congress. We literally shutdown the federal government as we know it
by the sheer mass of ten million of us.
2) Ten million of us all stop paying taxes at the same time. We
opt out of the system and bring the government to its financial knees
while at the same time demanding that all current politicians resign.
3) Only people who take a pledge to never allow the government
to spend more than it takes in (except in times of declared war) will be
allowed to fill the now empty seats in Congress. They must also pledge
to run our government according to what the Constitution says.
4) The Federal Reserve will be fully audited and made to operate in the open.
Scenario B)
1) A number of states opt out of the system. A good example
would be Governor Perry of Texas telling the Federal Government that
Texas will no longer be accepting any funds from the Federal Government
and will no longer be sending any funds to the Federal Government. The
residents of Texas will no longer pay income taxes to the Federal
Government and Texas will operate as an independent Republic.
2) Other states such as Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and
more do the same. These new “Republics” form a consortium of Free
States and trade with each other as well as encourage free enterprise to
prosper by having no corporate income taxes.
3) Citizens of the United States are free to move to any of
these new Free states and opt out of Washington DC’s control over their
lives.
Please propose your ideas as to how we can really change direction in
Washington. We need ideas. We need to take control of our future or it
will control us.
The question many people have would be if the Federal Government will
allow something like this to happen or would they try and deploy our
military to stop it. I contend that even if Congress or the President
tried to make the military deploy against American citizens they would
not do it. They would refuse and hopefully even support the peaceful
movement to restore America. The hope will be that the police and the
military will ‘allow’ this to happen without using force. If the
movement is large enough how can they stop us? Have you heard of the
Oathkeepers?
Don’t kid yourself and think meaningful change will happen without
turmoil and strife. It won’t happen without sacrifice at a level no one
in our generation has ever seen. Are we willing to make that sacrifice? I
am but how many others are?
How many are willing to pledge “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to restore America?

10/11/2012

Have you looked at your food labels lately? Do you
see FDA (government agency) approved unnecessary additives such as: Aspartame,
Monosodium glutamate (MSG), artificial colorings and flavorings, BHA,
BHT, yeast, yeast extract, caseinate, 'hydrogenized' ingredients,
L-cysteine, 'proteins', 'seasonings', 'spices', cottonseed oil,
canola oil, and the list goes on and on !So you say, "what's wrong with these?
Seasonings and spices sound okay. And the FDA approves of all
these things - so what's the problem?" If 'spices' and 'seasonings' were
really what the words indicate, there would be nothing wrong with it - - - but
surprise! They are "cover" words for MSG when used in general terms
like this. If they were really 'spices' and 'seasonings' as we would normally think
of them to be, they would NOT be listed in these general terms;
the spice or seasoning would be individually named, like salt, ginger, cinnamon,
etc. - you get the picture. If it was really a spice, it would name the
spice - - - not be listed as the general term 'spices' or 'seasonings' or
'flavorings.' MSG and all these 'cover' words it uses
to deliberately deceive the public, is a flavoring and
flavoring enhancer, but a killer one! ******Oh, and BTW, I've just learned that things like cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger (and probably many others), are actually mostly sawdust with a little bit of the spice's essential oil added for scent, and some coloring. Which means that even if they're labeled as such, they may very well not be. My advice to you on this would be to go to your organic/whole food supplier, and purchase spices from them. 3/25/14 NAB*By the way, MSG paves the way to
Alzheimer's disease. It does permanent brain damage!
Haven't you ever wondered why our kids today can't learn in school the way
they use to, and why they have so many learning and behavioral problems
today? [I'm not just saying this; this has been proven by extensive
research !] This is why it is hidden under other terms, so YOU the public,
won't know what you are unknowingly putting into your body !Why you can't even buy a stick of gum or a can
of soup without these poisons added to it!! All processed foods, cake
mixes, crackers, bread, and even pet foods are loaded with these deadly
killers! Aspartame is Nutra Sweet, and also causes brain
dysfunction. Airplane pilots have been known to have brain seizures while flying,
after drinking a can of diet soda!Then there's the waste products, cottonseed oil and
canola oil - neither of them meant for human consumption. They're cheap,
that's why companies use them; but they are dangerous. They can cause stroke or
heart attacks, since both oils cause the blood to become a sticky substance. That's
like gumming up your car engine with glue, in place of good, clean oil.Also all these additives are fattening! So are
the antibiotics you get from your doctor (bet you didn't know that); And the
antibiotics in cows milk, not to mention all the other poisons and chemicals in it.Why would the government want to do
this, you ask? Simple - money and control! Plus there's a not-so-well-known agency
within the government that was started way back in the early 1900's by the Rockefellers.
It is called the "Population Control" Agency and its meaning is
exactly as it sounds! It's not just by chance that we have a 'different flu
epidemic' every year and exactly at the same time every year. Why we even have
the Agenda Media having you expecting it each year and now even have a season
name for it! - - the "Flu Season." You never heard this term
35-40 years ago.Oh yes, the main-stream agenda (gov't) media
spoon feeds us exactly what the government elite want us to feed on, and exactly when,
where, and how too! Fifty years ago there was no "flu season" -- in fact,
flu was rare; it certainly did not have a yearly visit as it has now for the past 20
years.It's no secret anymore that our government has used
its' citizens as experimental guinea pigs for many, many years, and still does. Everything
from radiation experiments to biological experiments. Just as the Gulf War
Syndrome was created in the Maryland government lab and deliberately
injected and put into the food of our soldiers
(they were also given pills). Yes - they were guinea pigs!
It was NOT Saddam Hussein, as crazy as he is, that did it to our
soldiers, it was our own government !!And even after the Gulf War Syndrome was found to be
contagious, our government refused to help our people - when the treatment was
as simple as the use of a common and safe drug 'Doxysycline' that's been around for
ages! No! Our wonderful government just kept denying the existence of the illness
because their experiment was not finished yet !!!Our government (elite) used biological weapons
against our own people! Thank you, George Bush! Hope you're proud of
yourself! [Or have you forgotten that deal that the government and media
quickly swept under the rug, and we never heard of it again!? Cover-up!! One
of many !] There was even a song written and recorded about all this
- "Where Are The Voices That Care?"To get back to the subject of our "doctored
up" foods with the big stamp of approval by our FDA (Food and Drug
Administration) - It is virtually impossible to go to the food stores today and find any
food pure without some additives added. Why, try a can of Tapioca pudding
ready-to-eat, then make some the old fashioned way with the real tapioca and milk
(fresh goat milk, NOT cows milk) and then compare the taste. The can
stuff is so loaded with "flavorings, enhancers" that it doesn't taste at
all like real tapioca pudding. My son loves tapioca pudding -- but he's only had the
government's version, which is so loaded with MSG flavoring enhancers that it's like
eating candy. When I gave him a taste of the real thing (which is a very healthy food) ---
he darn near choked on it! It's bland next to the overly 'flavored enhanced' and
artificially sweetened government version.What has happened is, kids are raised from
young on, on these government controlled 'foods' and their taste buds on their
tongue and the connections in the brain have become "programmed" as to what
something is suppose to taste like, even if it is fake, (and toxic!).This has been a progressive procedure by our
government -- all leading to one thing -- full control of the people.
Just think about it --- if you control the health of the people, then you
control THEM. Simple really. And it has worked! The
U.S. is the UNhealthiest nation in the civilized world. Try to find a young person today that knows
what TRUE FOODS and their REAL TASTE are.
You can't. They have all been "programmed" from young on, and
that includes the young parents of today, who think a 'meal' is running to
McDonald's, Taco Bell, Wendy's, or Burger King.These are not only unhealthy 'foods' but dangerous
as well! Look at all the heart attacks that are now happening to the young people
-- 17 year old boys dropping dead on the school basketball court! Teens'
blood pressure today are that of 80 year olds! I heard a doctor in Tampa,
Fla. report on his radio show that he is seeing so many of these now. And it's all
due to our American diet of fast foods. No one knows what a home made dinner
is anymore! No one cooks anymore! And it's killing us.Even canned vegetables are "flavor
enhanced" and nothing can change those "programmed" taste buds, once
they're formed. It begins with the first 'people foods' that are given
to babies -- and that ungodly concoction called 'soda.' I could scream every time I see a
young child being given a drink of soda. That stuff (except for ginger ale)
can kill you! If you could only see what it does to your insides, you'd never touch
this poison again !But what can you expect?! These new young
parents today are a product of government foods and
chemicals. That's why it's called - "The Chemical Generation."All this is leading to the ultimate government U.N.
One World Order control. It will be a snap for them now that they have the peoples' very
lives in the palm of their hand. If they have your health -- they have YOU!
Remember that!I'll bet you don't know that the human chip implant
is already being used, do you? Don't expect the government to allow you to
know it either. Not until they are ready to. These chips will not only carry
your life story and information in them, but they are secretly designed to
"eliminate" you at a set time! Also, these chips are being implanted into
your children without your knowledge via the now 'mandatory' government
vaccinations! Also in some hospitals, newborns are being implanted!
Don't expect the government to own up to this, but it is happening. This was
reported by an ex-government man who worked for the CIA. And that's not all!
Some vaccinations are deliberately tainted with the Aids virus ( also made in
that government lab). Yes, Aids was also a biological weapon made by
our own government! (Yes, I have proof by the government's own documents, and
I also met a man who worked in the lab that worked on it way back then, and he confirmed
it also.) But the government convinced YOU that it was a
monkey's fault! Not so!People need food -- and the government controls it
all! Think about that! They have control on what you put into your body. They
control how foods should taste to you. They have you fully programmed just the
way they want, and you don't even know it. And remember, sick people are money
makers for everybody concerned with the government: the doctors, the drug companies,
the thousands of health organizations (bet you didn't know the gov't has its fingers in
all of these, did you!). Weak and sickly people are easier to control. Healthy
people can fight back, and the government does not want that. Keep in mind that the American government that we
have now, is NOT the same one that was formed in 1776. This is another subject
and is covered in another page. So, do you still trust the government's FDA with
your life ? Do you still trust this government elite in
Washington?ARE YOU GOING TO BE
A WILLING PARTICIPANT IN THEIR AGENDA?It is time that we the people stand up for ourselves
and for our children and for our Country -- the
true AMERICA. IT TAKES 'GUTS' TO
STAND UP FOR THE RIGHT -- BUT IT TAKES A
'HERO' TO STAY STANDING!

10/07/2012

(USWGO) – Under the guise of reducing Food Stamps fraud, the United States Department of Agriculture is now considering biometric identification for all individuals that rely on assistance from Food Stamps or EBT. Yep anybody that wishes to get any benefits from the Food and Nutrition Services will have to accept RFID tracking technology and will also pave the way to forced RFID Chip tracking to be forcefully planted in the arm or forehead as Bible prophecy talked about in Revelations. The RFID Chip being mandatory will soon be a must just so people won’t starve.Even IBM, a organization that helped Hitler in Nazi Germany by selling specialized computers that were used for identification of Concentration camp victims for usage in the death camps, promoted a advertisement on video where people can shop in grocery stores without a need for a cashier but simply walk through a machine which scans all products purchased and then scans the RFID chip within the body which bills people digitally.Food Stamps is a federal benefits program under the USDA, which gives financial assistance to applicants at grocery stores only for food and drinks, based on income, how many persons living in a household, and based on other factors. Some of the applicants tend to be disabled people on Social Security Disablility benefits, etc etc, which cannot possibly work a job so they are reliant on the EBT/Foodstamps program.RFID is coming for you and your family and for anybody who needs foodstamps/EBT, no matter the circumstance, will have top get a RFID chip planted within the hand or forehead.Source: Brian D. Hill

govtslaves.info
June 13, 2012“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)In a little while, the above scene in Revelation 13 will become a global reality. People can no longer buy or sell without the mark of the beast. And sometimes that would mean no longer being able to eat!The USDA is now considering biometric identification for all individuals who will want to benefit from their Food and Nutrition Services. The RFID chip may just soon be a must for everyone who does not want to starve!The following is an excerpt of the executive summary of the FINAL REPORT of the Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program:Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics—such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face—as well as behavioral characteristics—including signatures and voice patterns.

Although used in law enforcement and defense for several years, it has recently been used in civilian applications and shows some promise to reduce the number of duplicate cases in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other assistance programs .

Already operational in some states

Biometric identification systems are currently operational at some level in Arizona, California (under county initiative, first by Los Angeles County), Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Finger imaging is the principal form of technology used in all eight States, though alternative technologies have simultaneously undergone trials in Massachusetts (facial recognition) and Illinois (retinal scanning). By the end of 2000, new systems are expected to be in place in California (statewide unified system), Delaware, and North Carolina. Other States are currently in the initial planning stages, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, there is little information available at this point regarding the specific course and trajectory these States will follow in terms of system types, implementation schedules, and the benefit programs in which they will implement the new requirement.The States planned for implementation of their biometric identification systems in response to a wide variety of factors and considerations idiosyncratic to each State environment. Some States reported that their respective legislative mandates, which prescribed specific dates by which biometric systems were required to be in place, allowed insufficient time for development and planning. The States developed and followed implementation schedules in accordance with internal priorities and considerations. The States uniformly described their implementation processes as largely uneventful, though they encountered a variety of minor implementation issues, most of which were associated with the logistical difficulties of mobilizing and managing such a complex initiative.Preparing staff for the implementation of the biometric systems, both philosophically and operationally, took different forms, priorities, and levels of effort in the States. At implementation, advance notification to clients and/or the general public about new biometric client identification procedures was considered important by all State representatives. The objective of providing advance notification was to inform and prepare clients for the additional application or recertification step (i.e., to explain the requirement and who is required to submit, and to address client concerns), as well as to accelerate enrollment of the existing caseload. All States prepared informational mailings to clients advising them of the new requirement. Some States reported developing additional outreach media including multilingual (English and Spanish) videos, posters, and brochures for viewing and distribution in the local office. Most of the States also identified various outlets in the community through which they informed the general public in advance about the implementation of biometric client identification procedures.Program outcomesThe evaluations of finger imaging systems conducted by six States have produced the following findings.

A small number of duplicate applications (approximately 1 duplicate for every 5,000 cases) have been detected by finger imaging systems. Finger-imaging systems appear to detect more fraud in statewide implementations than in regional pilot systems. Additional matches have been found by interstate comparisons of finger-image data.

Institution of a finger-imaging requirement can produce a significant, short-term reduction in caseload, because some existing clients refuse to comply with the requirement. The number of refusals depends on the implementation procedures and appears to be lower when finger imaging is incorporated into the recertification process.

The most carefully controlled estimate of non-compliance among existing clients suggests that introduction of a finger-imaging requirement reduces participation by approximately 1.3%. However, this estimate reflects both reduced fraud and deterrence of eligible individuals and households.

9/27/2012

Authority
is nearly always interpreted as police and the
courts. In media jargon it also can
be a reference to political or social leadership in general. For
example, military troops
become authority during an
occupation and the mayor, or civil disaster administrator can be an
authority during a time of
isolated natural disaster.

In
all cases, the person of authority has the appointed
right to rule over the public. All
interpretations of authority are supported by the courts, or the law.

The
laws of the land are always made by the men in charge.
Many are drafted by local councils
while others are handed down by state or federal governments. Laws can
be both fair and
unfair, depending upon
circumstances. All laws are binding. All laws can and should be broken
under certain conditions. Yet
violating any of these laws can get
us arrested, brought before a judge, and sometimes jailed. When it
happens, we are usually
always forced to pay a hefty fine
that few people can afford.

That
the fine money goes back into government coffers
and pays the salaries of the high
priced lawyers, judges, court clerks and police officers who operate and
maintain the legal
system is, in a sense, a conflict of
interest. There is always political pressure on the police and courts
to make enough
arrests and convictions and generate
enough money to keep the system operating smoothly.

New
laws are being written daily, but governments rarely
purge old laws from the books. Thus
there is a collection of thousands and thousands of laws on the books.
In the United
States it is difficult for anyone to go through a day without accidentally or unknowingly
violating a few of these laws.

A
police officer once told me that it was easy to find
a reason to make a traffic stop. He
said that most drivers unwittingly violate traffic laws all the time.
All he had to do,
he said, was follow a car for about
two city blocks before finding cause to turn on his lights and siren.

The
sad truth about our legal system is that it is corrupt.
It is designed to feed upon itself
at the expense of the general public. It is a secret tax upon the land.

The war on drugs is the very worse example of the way
in which this corrupt system works.

While
most people can agree that some drugs, namely heroin
and cocaine, are harmful,
destructive and highly addictive, and consequently should be banned from
public consumption. These
drugs are no longer considered a
medical treatment for anything. They are, thus, recreational drugs and
unnecessary.

The
attack on marijuana, and even the psychedelic drugs
found to be beneficial in treating
and correcting abhorrent behavior patterns, is totally unnecessary.
Instead of permitting
these drugs to be administered by
doctors on a prescription basis, our government has chosen to conduct a
campaign to destroy
all traces of the drugs and to
imprison anyone caught producing and distributing them.

The
police, in a sense, act as a control on the trafficking
of marijuana, which is more popular
than ever for both medical and recreational reasons and can be grown in
anybodys back
yard. Governments have used the drug
laws to feed their pockets. Our jails and prisons are crowded with drug
offenders. And
the organized crime syndicates, that
traffic in these medications, are making billions.

I
have gone into this discourse to point out the corruption
that binds us all. I also argue that
it is all right to defy this authority whenever possible. But it must
be done in such
a way that the police and courts are
bound by their own laws and prohibited from doing anything about your
actions.

Here are the rules:

Never physically resist arrest or publicly protest anything.
The answer is non-participation.

If
stopped in your car by a police officer and issued
a traffic summons, sit quietly in
your car. Say nothing unless the officer asks you a question. Never
volunteer information.
Produce all of the documents you are
asked to show, and remain polite at all times. Never get out of the car
and keep the
drivers side window rolled up except
for enough of a slit to pass the drivers license and proof of the
insurance on the vehicle
you are operating.

If
issued a summons, and 99 percent of the time you will
be, expect to go to court and plead
innocent. Even if you are guilty of something, never admit it. Traffic
tickets are usually
always handled by the local
magistrates because the courts are usually packed with people charged
with more serious offenses.
You have a right to have a trial
before a judge, however, even for a speeding ticket. Demand that right.
It will force the
judge to make time for your case to
be heard. It will bind the arresting officer to take time off from his
schedule, or his
free time, to testify in court.
Someone from the prosecutors office and a court clerk also must be
involved. It will take
weeks to set up such a trial.

When
your trial occurs, stand before the court on your
own. Never hire a lawyer, and don't
let the judge appoint one on your behalf. Lawyers charge big fees. When
the court
convicts you, the fee charged by the
lawyer will be added to the amount of money you are ordered to pay.

During
the trial remember that you have a right to remain
silent. It is up to the police and
the prosecutor to prove that you are guilty. You also have the right to
question the police
officer and any other people who
testify against you. You are not required to prepare a defense, but you
may have witnesses
testify for you if you think it will
help. Expect to lose your trial. But remember this. The fine and court
costs you pay
must not be any higher than the
court would have charged you anyway. Because you demanded a trial, the
state is obligated
to pay the fees of the police, the
judge, the prosecutor and court recorder during your time in court.
Figure it out. A speeding
ticket might cost you $100. Your
trial might cost the state a thousand dollars.

If
enough people stopped parading like sheep into the
court magistrate's office and paying
their fines, but demanding trials instead, it would not take long to
tear down the
walls of this corrupt system.

Another
intricate part of the judicial system is the jury
box. While a small court trial for a
traffic offense does not require a jury, most court trials do.
Consequently the courts
have a complex program of pressing,
or snatching citizens off the street for jury duty. If you are an
established resident
in your community the chance is very
good that you will be summoned at least once, if not several times in
your life, for
jury duty.

Always
show up for jury duty. It is the law. Answer the
questions truthfully when the
lawyers consider you as a juror. If you are forced to take time from
your job or school to hear
a trial, remember to practice quiet
resistance. Always side with the defense. Even if you think the accused
person may be
guilty, add that question of doubt
and carry it into the jury room. If you refuse to budge on this issue,
you can hang up
the jury and force a new trial. It
also may be possible for you to convince the other jurors to share your
doubts and find
the defendant innocent.

Dont vote. All elections in the United States are corrupted. The only exception might be to vote against a proposal
to increase a tax on your house. Always say no to that.

Dont
salute the flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance
to it. The words uttered by the
masses as they stand before their flag are no longer true. Thus you lie
when you say you admire
the flag because it stands for a
Republic, and assures liberty and justice for all. The United States
stopped being a republic at least 100 years ago, if it ever really
was one. And as you now know from
reading this essay, there is no real liberty and justice for everybody.
It only exists for
the rich and powerful.

9/26/2012

RFID chips are being embedded in everything from jeans to paper money, and your privacy is at stake.

“ Right now, you can buy a hammer, a pair of jeans, or a razor blade with anonymity. With RFID tags, that may be a thing of the past. ”

Bar codes are something most of us never think about. We go to the grocery store to buy dog food, the checkout person runs our selection over the scanner, there's an audible beep or boop, and then we're told how much money we owe. Bar codes in that sense are an invisible technology that we see all the time, but without thinking about what's in front of our eyes.

Bar codes have been with us so long, and they're so ubiquitous, that its hard to remember that they're a relatively new technology that took a while to catch on. The patent for bar codes was issued in 1952. It took twenty years before a standard for bar codes was approved, but they still didn't catch on. Ten years later, only 15,000 suppliers were using bar codes. That changed in 1984. By 1987 - only three years later! - 75,000 suppliers were using bar codes. That's one heck of a growth curve.

So what changed in 1984? Who, or what, caused the change?

Wal-Mart.

When Wal-Mart talks, suppliers listen. So when Wal-Mart said that it wanted to use bar codes as a better way to manage inventory, bar codes became de rigeur. If you didn't use bar codes, you lost Wal-Mart's business. That's a death knell for most of their suppliers.

The same thing is happening today. I'm here to tell you that the bar code's days are numbered. There's a new technology in town, one that at first blush might seem insignificant to security professionals, but it's a technology that is going to be a big part of our future. And how do I know this? Pin it on Wal-Mart again; they're the big push behind this new technology.

So what is it? RFID tags.

RFID 101

Invented in 1969 and patented in 1973, but only now becoming commercially and technologically viable, RFID tags are essentially microchips, the tinier the better. Some are only 1/3 of a millimeter across. These chips act as transponders (transmitters/responders), always listening for a radio signal sent by transceivers, or RFID readers. When a transponder receives a certain radio query, it responds by transmitting its unique ID code, perhaps a 128-bit number, back to the transceiver. Most RFID tags don't have batteries (How could they? They're 1/3 of a millimeter!). Instead, they are powered by the radio signal that wakes them up and requests an answer.

Most of these "broadcasts" are designed to be read between a few inches and several feet away, depending on the size of the antenna and the power driving the RFID tags (some are in fact powered by batteries, but due to the increased size and cost, they are not as common as the passive, non-battery-powered models). However, it is possible to increase that distance if you build a more sensitive RFID receiver.

RFID chips cost up to 50 cents, but prices are dropping. Once they get to 5 cents each, it will be cost-efficient to put RFID tags in almost anything that costs more than a dollar.

Who's using RFID?

RFID is already in use all around us. Ever chipped your pet dog or cat with an ID tag? Or used an EZPass through a toll booth? Or paid for gas using ExxonMobils' SpeedPass? Then you've used RFID.

Some uses, especially those related to security, seem like a great idea. For instance, Delta is testing RFID on some flights, tagging 40,000 customer bags in order to reduce baggage loss and make it easier to route bags if customers change their flight plans.

Three seaport operators - who account for 70% of the world's port operations - agreed to deploy RFID tags to track the 17,000 containers that arrive each day at US ports. Currently, less than 2% are inspected. RFID tags will be used to track the containers and the employees handling them.

The United States Department of Defense is moving into RFID in order to trace military supply shipments. During the first Gulf War, the DOD made mistakes in its supply allocation. To streamline operations, the U.S. military has placed RFID tags on 270,000 cargo containers and tracks those shipments throughout 40 countries.

On a smaller level, but one that will instantly resonate with security pros, Star City Casino in Sydney, Australia placed RFID tags in 80,000 employee uniforms in order to put a stop to theft. The same idea would work well in corporate PCs, networking equipment, and handhelds.

In all of these cases, RFID use seems reasonable. It is non-intrusive, and it seems to balance security and privacy. Other uses for RFID, however, may be troublesome.

Visa is combining smart cards and RFID chips so people can conduct transactions without having to use cash or coins. These smart cards can also be incorporated into cell phones and other devices. Thus, you could pay for parking, buy a newspaper, or grab a soda from a vending machine without opening your wallet. This is wonderfully convenient, but the specter of targeted personal ads popping up as I walk through the mall, a la Minority Report, does not thrill me.

Michelin, which manufactures 800,000 tires a day, is going to insert RFID tags into its tires. The tag will store a unique number for each tire, a number that will be associated with the car's VIN (Vehicle Identification Number). Good for Michelin, and car manufacturers, and fighting crime. Potentially bad for you. Who will assure your privacy? Do you really want your car's tires broadcasting your every move?

The European Central Bank may embed RFID chips in the euro note. Ostensibly to combat counterfeiters and money-launderers, it would also enable banks to count large amounts of cash in seconds. Unfortunately, such a move would also makes it possible for governments to track the passage of cash from individual to individual. Cash is the last truly anonymous way to buy and sell. With RFID tags, that anonymity would be gone. In addition, banks would not be the only ones who could in an instant divine how much cash you were carrying; criminals can also obtain power transceivers.

Several major manufacturers and retailers expect RFID tags to aid in managing the supply chain, from manufacturing to shipping to stocking store shelves, including Gillette (which purchased 500 million RFID tags for its razors), Home Depot, The Gap, Proctor & Gamble, Prada, Target, Tesco (a United Kingdom chain), and Wal-Mart. Especially Wal-Mart.

The retail giant, the largest employer in America, is working with Gillette to create "smart shelves" that can alert managers and stockboys to replenish the supply of razors. More significantly, Wal-Mart intends for its top 100 suppliers to fully support RFID for inventory tracking by 2005. Wal-Mart would love to be able to point an RFID reader at any of the 1 billion sealed boxes of widgets it receives every year and instantly know exactly how many widgets it has. No unpacking, no unnecessary handling, no barcode scanners required.

RFID Issues

Right now, you can buy a hammer, a pair of jeans, or a razor blade with anonymity. With RFID tags, that may be a thing of the past. Some manufacturers are planning to tag just the packaging, but others will also tag their products. There is no law requiring a label indicating that an RFID chip is in a product. Once you buy your RFID-tagged jeans at The Gap with RFID-tagged money, walk out of the store wearing RFID-tagged shoes, and get into your car with its RFID-tagged tires, you could be tracked anywhere you travel. Bar codes are usually scanned at the store, but not after purchase. But RFID transponders are, in many cases, forever part of the product, and designed to respond when they receive a signal. Imagine everything you own is "numbered, identified, catalogued, and tracked." Anonymity and privacy? Gone in a hailstorm of invisible communication, betrayed by your very property.

But let's not stop there. Others are talking about placing RFID tags into all sensitive or important documents: "it will be practical to put them not only in paper money, but in drivers' licenses, passports, stock certificates, manuscripts, university diplomas, medical degrees and licenses, birth certificates, and any other sort of document you can think of where authenticity is paramount." In other words, those documents you're required to have, that you can't live without, will be forever tagged.

Consider the human body as well. Applied Digital Solutions has designed an RFID tag - called the VeriChip - for people. Only 11 mm long, it is designed to go under the skin, where it can be read from four feet away. They sell it as a great way to keep track of children, Alzheimer's patients in danger of wandering, and anyone else with a medical disability, but it gives me the creeps. The possibilities are scary. In May, delegates to the Chinese Communist Party Congress were required to wear an RFID-equipped badge at all times so their movements could be tracked and recorded. Is there any doubt that, in a few years, those badges will be replaced by VeriChip-like devices?

Surveillance is getting easier, cheaper, smaller, and ubiquitous. Sure, it's possible to destroy an RFID tag. You can crush it, puncture it, or microwave it (but be careful of fires!). You can't drown it, however, and you can't demagnetize it. And washing RFID-tagged clothes won't remove the chips, since they're specifically designed to withstand years of wearing, washing, and drying. You could remove the chip from your jeans, but you'd have to find it first.

That's why Congress should require that consumers be notified about products with embedded RFID tags. We should know when we're being tagged. We should also be able to disable the chips in our own property. If it's the property of the company we work for, that's a different matter. But if it's ours, we should be able to control whether tracking is enabled.

Security professionals need to realize that RFID tags are dumb devices. They listen, and they respond. Currently, they don't care who sends the signal. Anything your companies' transceiver can detect, the bad guy's transceiver can detect. So don't be lulled into a false sense of security.

With RFID about to arrive in full force, don't be lulled at all. Major changes are coming, and not all of them will be positive. The law of unintended consequences is about to encounter surveillance devices smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

Would you prefer to have a Government that takes freedoms in order to "Protect" you, or handle your protection on your own risk, and enjoy your freedom?

Contributors

Fellow Readers

The Nation of No Remorse

Recommended Reading

Other Sites of Interest

The Truth about 9/11

You know there is a problem with your governments story about what happened on 9/11, when a litany of Highly ranked and decorated Government officials are saying that a new investigation needs to be done. See the evidence for yourself here on 9/11 Proof.